Printable View
Hello, I'm new to this forum and Ive recently purchased a new honda civic vti, however when I fuel up my baby it only gives me 450km and thats using bp ultimate or v-power racing. I do not step on my car as its only done around 1000km on the clock. wondering if anyone else gets the same? or is their something wrong with my engine?
Couple of things:
1) How many litres do you actually put in? Without that number your figure of 450 doesn't mean anything. Work out your ltr/100km ratio. My last one was 8.4ltr/100km. One member here gets around 6ltr/100 - but he does alot of rural back roads.
2) New engines have slightly worse economy than run in engines. Give it time.
But from my eperience that sounds about right in normal city/suburbia driving.
Oh and Hi!
Well.. I put in a full tank which is about 50litres i think.. wateva a full tank is.. I an currently getting around 11.1ltr/100km which i think is rediculous.
do u think I would be better off using normal unleaded fuel? maybe it would eat less? thanks
Yes 50 ltrs. But your fuel bar will show the orange warning light around 40 ltrs. There's always heaps left before the light goes off. So its very very unlikely that you fill anything past 40 litres. Check the servo docket - you'll be surprised how early the fuel light goes on. Next time find out exactly how far you traveled and make a note of the litres of fuel when you refill (assuming you reset the trip computer and filled the tank to the brim).Quote:
Originally Posted by warwick108
No normal unleaded will use the same amount of fuel. So technically you're wasting money on premium stuff - but I do it too as my engine is still new'ish. Around 1.4k or so.
using ultimate 98 i get anywhere between 400-510 depending on how i drive (fd1 manual)
If you want to calculate fuel consumption, fill your tank to the top, drive around and then note the number of kms you did. Fill back up to the top using the same petrol station and if possible, the same pump. Divide the number of litres filled by the number of kms driven and multiply by 100 to get L/100km.
BTW, stick to 91, 95 or 98 RON. No point using V-power racing. You probably lose a bit of range because of the ethanol.
i used V-Power on my AT Sports, and the fuel consumption is worse than the normal unleaded (12.5L/100Kms if i remember correctly). And my avg fuel consumption is 10.5-11L/100Kms.
IMO your doing alright, LOL... I have an Auto VTi 2007
I drive City only 90% of the time..
Out of 40L tank (always 10l left in bottom) I get from 380L -> 420L using regular unleaded.. I don't thrash the car at all.. I am up to 6,000km and it hasn't improved yet.. Actually this is by far my biggest disappointment with this car, my 2002 Mazda Astina 323 1.8L did much better and apparently the Civic has 'advanced' fuel saving technology? just not as advanced as the old Mazda 323 1.8L ;-)
On the highway or in the country it does better of course, I just got back from a holiday in regional NSW and I was getting more like 570 per 40L tank..
just rang my uncle with a VTI-L auto, 2000kms and the last time he fill in it was 7.5L/100Kms... and its a 90% city as well since his doing delivery around the city...
Actually my fuel consumption is probably 6% worse as checking my speedo at two different speed checks on the hume hwy, to actually do 100kph I need to drive at 106kph. So my car would be telling me I am travelling around 6% further than I actually am?
It does seem a little high but not out of the ordinary. My GTI has had 2 tanks so far and it's odometer reading is 1,200. I've done about 20kms on the third tank (55 litres) so I'm getting close to 600kms per tank. For a brand new demo that's pretty good because people don't mind having a go in them.
My DC5R would get around 380-420kms from a tank but I only drive it in a spirited fashion and it's a modded K20. What's the ADR claim for the 1.8 in the FD?
They won't listen to you until you've done at least 5,000kms anyway. They need a larger timeframe to monitor it. We've had similar instances with VW customers. They expected ADR quoted figures on the first week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joele
The only way to get ADR figures is to not have traffic lights, hills and traffic jams in city driving. ;)
I have done 6,000 now, will bring it up at 10,000km service but who knows where it will get me...Quote:
Originally Posted by m0nty ITR
ADR I believe is 7.3 combined for the Auto..
Denot said his uncle is beating ADR doing deliveries in the city.. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by aaronng
doing short trips also is bad for fuel consumtion!
I would ask how did he calculate the fuel consumption numbers? Unless he did the fill to the top, drive and refill to the top method, I don't trust the numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joele
Thats the way I do mine, fill to full and drive until the light comes on.. 40L -> 42L consistantly (depends on how quickly I can find a servo when the light comes on LOL)Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronng
What's your exact fuel consumption, say for the last tank that you filled? You gave a rough estimate of filling with 40-42L and driving 380-420km. Eventhough that sounds like a narrow range of numbers, it can give you anything from a best of 9.5L/100km to a worse of 11L/100km. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Joele
Last tank is a bad example as that was on holiday in the country, so 90% hwy driving...
hwy one was 7.22
3 city before that were: 9.36, 11.02, 10.94
How much throttle do you use when you take off from traffic lights? Your numbers are slightly better than an auto Euro with its bigger engine, but still loses out to the manual Euro. Maybe the R18a engine in the VTi is only fuel efficient at small accelerator positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joele
meh... i dunno, i didnt measure this myself... so hopefully he's not drunk this morning when I rang him... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Joele
but ask buddah51au he is an ex mechanic and his fuel consumption is amazing... check this thread: http://www.ozhonda.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69019
and here is his consumption before:
549km....37.04 lts......6.75 L/100km
553km....37.62 lts......6.80 L/100km
517km....35.62 lts......6.89 L/100km
496km....34.28 lts......6.51 L/100km
485km....33.33 lts......6.87 L/100km
524km....36.59 lts......6.98 L/100km
444km....29.62 lts......6.67 L/100km
439km....29.30 lts......6.67 L/100km
Try driving with very light throttle for 1 tank to see if it improves dramatically. I usually take off slowly and let the old ladies in the 2.2 auto camrys zoom off into the distance.
Yes new engines takes time to adjust so they consume a little bit more pertol, i was getting 480 km on 40 litres but since i have worn the engine in 35000KM now i get 550 KM. Ever since i installed 19" weighing 100kg+ it does 500KM.
After i installed my CAI it does 530 KM now.
denot: I can get 7.22 in the country, thats not too hard.. Considering the Honda claimed combined is 7.3L then his rural figures are believable..
Aaronng: I will try and take notice of that on my next tank and post back..
hey frost, does this means that if u change the OEM rims back you will get 580kms? :p jkz jkz...Quote:
Originally Posted by Frost_FD
on the topic, mine is constantly doing 10.8 to 11.5L/100kms at the moment a lot of city driving (stop start so many time) and 10-20% hwy (only on every weekend from eastern dist - harbour tunnel - Gore hill Fwy)
You should be able to get much better than the ADR 7.3L/100km. To compare, the Euro is rated for 9.4L/100km, and I get 10.5L/100km in the city (maybe 10-20% of motorway driving) and 7.0L/100km when doing pure highway at 110km/h.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joele
your engine is still new, let it run in first. after 10,000kms the fuel consumption will be better.
I noticed after 3000km it showed good results
Well my 7.22L on the HWY can't be due to my driving style, I drove up to 110Kmh (116kmh on my speedo) and set cruze control. CC was on from outskirts of Melbourne all the way up the Hume past Albury into NSW (at which point you do have to slow done to 50kmh a few times (drives you crazy) for the towns, but I just slow down then once through click Restore..Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronng
Yup, see if it improves after your first 6 month service.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joele
Sorry everyone, instead of writing 10000km I wrote 1000km leaving out the extra zero.. lolz.. I'm going to try to do 100km and then fill up..and see how many litres it used.
thanks for that idea.. =)
yeah our vti seems to chew through a bit of fuel too, but i haven't checked the numbers yet, lol
well this could be irrelavant but i recently got a new alignment ( was toe'ing at 17..LOL )
after that i jumped from 350 to 420 in my last tank. and i only fill up 33 litres with quiet a few spirited driving here n there.i hope i am not running lean?! car is modded with internals
^^ that reminds me, what tyre pressures are you guys running? I use 34-36psi.
~34/35psi, personally.
just drove down to melbourne and back via the Newell Hwy some sections between towns i was getting 5.50/100 in my civic, average 6.00/l not bad with 2 adults and a full load of clothes etc.
How do you know between towns? did the 7th gen not cheap out on a real trip computer???Quote:
Originally Posted by clayton4115
they have 2 trip computers but i have scangauge
i was getting up to 52MPG in the American standard! damn good result
i travelled to melbourne and the civic consumed 95 litres of fuel on the way down and 98 litres on the way back,
most expensive fill up 1.47/l most cheap $1.31/l.
The 8th generation Civic fitted with the R18A engine can give fantastic fuel economy if it is driven in an economical manner. The bottom line is your right foot controls fuel usage, full stop. As for the fuel gauge, i continually get 355 to 370kms from 1/2 tank, and when all bars disappear u have 6 liters remaining. As for economy i find it pointless just checking 1 tank, it is far better to average it out over several tanks to get an accurate reading. It is important to refill at the same pump every time as the angle of the car can make a difference of a few liters. Using air conditioning will increase fuel consumption by an average of 6%. It is a total waste of money using anything other than standard 91RON unleaded. My personal fuel consumption to date is
36,739kms - 2,502.72 liters - Average Fuel Consumption = 6.85 L/100km. Best recorded is 5.8 - worst recorded is 7.6.
By the way....if anyone wants to see my spreadsheet on fuel ecconomy just pm me with your email add and i will send it, or if u prefer to chat ym id is same as my id here.
best ive gotten is 5.2L/100km (calculated this over 420km)................i was amazed when i got this number as my friend was telling me thats close to hybrid consumption
this is on 08 FD1 Manual with RON98 highway travel @ 90km/hr ........... hahaha
woah.. i thought this thread was dead! lol
daym, i get on avg 10-10.5L/100km :(
you must've driven a lot in urban areas (or combined with peak times hwy) with 10-10.5lt for 1.8 engine.
my aurion v6 sportivo 3.5 engine done:
- 12-13lt for combined city and peak times freeway
- 10lt for combined city and off peak times freeway which is exactly what toyota claimed: 9.9lt/100km combined.
when i had my FD1 Auto I averaged 6.78L/100km over 60,000km with a best recorded of 5.8L/100km.
I now have a CU2 Euro & have averaged 7.18L/100km over 20,000km.
It all comes down to how you drive the car. Here is my Trip computer on the CU2.
http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/o...u/IMG_0196.jpg
Should be a auto.
My FD1 manual does around 500KM before 15000KM. Now it does about 530KM a tank.
Anyone have any results on what a Civic 2.0L sport gets?
Just curious..
Wow.. I sure hope your tank is smaller than an FN2R. In urban conditions I get around 500km on a tank before the warning light hits. And every trip includes at least some VTEC action. Engine has just ticked over 20,000km.
Maybe you had a bad batch of fuel and need to reset your ECU - Actually, I'm not even sure if that applies to FDs (?).
my 06 fd2 auto is lucky to get 450k per tank- city driving, some peak hour, but little vtec!!
gahhhhh! i get 300km at no bars =/ occasionally i do get up to 400 though. works out to be 12-13l/100km
you must be vtecing it everywhere u go
holy crap 12-13 is like an SUV.
That is almost double what I get out of a CU2 Euro Auto, very heavy right foot can be the only answer.
remember guys, VTEC on the FD1's are different to other honda VTEC'sQuote:
Originally Posted by FDBenni
R18A engine has its VTEC on the 'economy' cams engaging btw 1000-3500rpm.. after that would operate on 'high output' cams that dont have VTEC
FD2's on the otherhand have the K20Z2 engine that operates as any other VTEC engine.. no entirely too sure when VTEC engages but would operate on their high output cams
so as an experiment to all FD1 drivers.. drive btw 1000-3500rpm.. and see how ur fuel consumption goes
The answer to that is on the previous page.Quote:
Originally Posted by JOhnnyFD
just explainin VTEC buddah
u can hardly notice vtec deactivating.. it's the slightest nudge
I will have to copy this in 2 parts due to it's length. It is an old article I found on Temple of VTEC in 2006 when I got my FD1.
Honda's new R18A Engine
After briefly covering the new K20Z engine for the Asian Domestic Market, we now take a similar look at the new R18A engine that was launched with the new 8G Civic. This R18A engine is a more 'univeral' engine in the sense that it is being used in the new Civic throughout the world and not just Asia alone. There is likely tons of technical information on this new engine in car publications and internet sites all over the world. However as the materials for the R18A in this article are derived from the same technical overview presentation which the K20Z review was based on, this article may hopefully contain new and useful information for the reader who might still be seeking R18A information. As with the K20Z article, a similar comment applies to most of the photos in this artcle, with regards to their (lack of) quality and alignment.
In the technical presentation, Honda calls the R18A their "all new 1.8l i-VTEC". The engine is designed to work in conjunction with the new 5AT gearbox and like the K20Z also features Drive-By-Wire as part of its key technological features.
i-VTEC - "Same but Not The Same"
While there's much 'reputation' to be gained by being first on the block (i.e. being the first to publish a technical overview), doing this article at so late a time (after everyone else has more or less published their 'reference' review on the R18A) did allow me to make an important observation. This is that there seems to be some confusion about the i-VTEC mechanism on the R18A. Many seem to continue to think that i-VTEC on the R18A functions in a similar way to the VTEC mechanism in the original SOHC-VTEC engines like the D15B or D17A. This is not completely accurate and I hope I can correct this with this technical overview series.
The new R18A engine is a 16-valve SOHC design with a new 'i-VTEC' mechanism. This new i-VTEC mechanism is a cause of much confusion amongst even hardcore Honda enthusiasts. Basically when i-VTEC was first launched by Honda, they made a statement that i-VTEC = VTEC + VTC". This however is not true when applied to the R18A. As a SOHC design, it is not a trivial matter to implement an effective VTC mechanism to the R18A, not the traditional VTC which seeks to optimise intake and exhaust cam opening overlap. This is because a SOHC head uses a single camshaft for both intake and exhaust valves so the VTC's mechanism of rotating the camshaft on its axis will not work as it will affect both set of valves. So the important thing to bear in mind is that on the R18A, i-VTEC does not equal VTEC+VTC. There is no VTC and thus no continous variation of intake and exhaust valve opening overlap. The i-VTEC mechanism basically is similar to the SOHC-VTEC mechanism on the D15B and D17A of old. However, this is where the similarity ends. i-VTEC on the R18A does not merge two torque/power curves together. Rather it switches the R18A engine between two entirely different modes, a normal 'power' mode and a fully docile 'economy' mode. Furthermore, when and whether to switch is not determined by simple parameters like engine rpm alone but rather by a combination of parameters, most importantly parameters used by the ECU to decide if it should 'open' VTEC or not. So the 'i' in i-VTEC actually stands for 'intelligent' meaning a new generation of SOHC-VTEC which responds to actual road and running conditions, rather than the traditional one which works more or less mainly on engine rpms alone. VTEC on the R18A does not always engage - if the proper conditions are not reached, the engine might never enage VTEC at all.
This article is not the best place to dwell into intricate details about the new i-VTEC implementation as it's done on the R18A engine. To fully explain the R18A's i-VTEC implementation will take up too much space and detract from the original objective of this article which is a full technical overview of the engine, not just the i-VTEC mechanism alone. Meaning while the R18A spots 'i-VTEC' prominently, i-VTEC is not its sole technological showcase. The whole engine is actually a showcase of state of the art thinking and technology. A planned follow-up technical overview article will do a much better job. In that article, I will be using materials supplied by Honda for this purpose. i-VTEC on the R18A represents a whole new way of thinking and is truly a step forward. However in this article, we shall focus more on the overall technical detials of the new R18A engine.
Design Objectives
Like the case with the K20Z, the Honda R&D engineers clarified their design objectives for the new R18A engine in the technical overview presentation. The R18A is described as an 1.8L i-VTEC '4V SOHC' with a 'new' i-VTEC implementation. These objectives for the R18A are
Responsive Acceleration :
and "Torquey performance thruout the rpm range'
Naturally the baseline for comparison was the 1.7l SOHC-VTEC D17A engine in the outgoing 7G ES-Civic. Recall that this engine delivers a max power of 130ps and a max torque of 15.8 kgm from a 1.7l SOHC design using the traditional 12V/16V VTEC mechanism. The new R18A engine, with an additional 100 c.c. of engine capacity and exploiting new technologies delivers a max power of 103kW or 140ps. This is 7kW or 10ps extra power over the D17A. Max torque is 174Nm or 17.7 kgm which is 19Nm or 1.9kgm more than the D17A. So while the difference in displacement is only 100c.c., relatively the R18A delivers a lot from it.
Similarly with the K20Z, the saying 'a picture speaks a thousand words' applies here with this R18A as well. Honda supplied a similar comparison chart in the presentation, comparing the power and torque curves for the D17A and R18A. However in the PR materials for the R18A i-VTEC, the same chart is available but in a much higher 'publishing' quality. So I used the better chart which is reproduced on the left and like the case with the K20Z clearly shows Honda's objectives and how it has been achieved with the R18A.
Like the case with the K20Z, the focus with the new R18A is 'torque' and its delivery across the rpm range. Looking at the comparison chart on the left, we can see how much more torque and power the R18A delivers over the D17A. In this case, the comparison of the max-torque figure is even misleading as the R18A peaks in torque at a different rpm than the D17A. So the largest increase in torque that the R18A delivers is at its max-torque point and the increase at that point is actually greater than 1.9kgm (around 2.5kgm based on crude visual estimation).
Of greater significance is how the R18A delivers a lot more torque/power than the D17A over the entire rpm range. This starts from the idle rpm and continues on to the redline. Based upon visual estimation, the increase in torque is at least 10Nm. When coupled with the new 5AT gearbox, this translates to greatly improved performance.
This then is what the Honda R&D engineers listed as their achievement for the R18A - (as compared to the D17A) the R18A achieves both power performance and superior fuel economy (more on the fuel economy in the i-VTEC tech overview article later).
Key Acheivements of the R18A engine (Honda's view)
Honda R&D listed 6 key achievements for the new R18A engine. These areas, along with the technologies used to achieve them, are explained in the technical presentation and listed below.
1. Fuel Economy + Power
The R18A delivers a new level of fuel economy but yet more power than the D17A. This is achieved by using the following technologies:
• Via Valve Closure Timing Control (the new i-VTEC mechanism). As explained above, we will be taking a close look at this implementation in a separate article in the near future)
• Reduced (internal) Friction from
• Pistons shot with molybdenum disulfide
• Ion plating on piston rings
• Plateau Honing
Reduced internal friction directly leads to less power loss inside the engine and thus more power (from the combustion of the A/F mixture) delivered to the flywheel.
2. Increased Torque
For improved driveability, Honda has been concentrating on torque on their newer engines. Actually more torque at a specific rpm directly means more power at the same rpm but the common term used by car enthusiasts nowadays in that 'torquey' implies more acceleration (due to more power across the rpm range) while 'powerful' can often mean a 'torqueless' engine with all the power coming in at high rpms. In this case, the objective and achievement of the R18A is more torque throughout the rpm range (as compared to the D17A) or alternately and equally as correct, more power throughout the rpm range (take a look at the power chart above to see what I mean).
Specific technologies used to achieve improved torque are listed as
• a new variable-length intake manifold
• Piston Oil jets (similar to those used in the B-series engines)
Of the two items, the new variable length intake manifold is one of the core components of the R18A that is responsible for its torque/power delivery so we will take a closer look at this.
Variable Length Intake Manifold
While the R18A does not rely on traditional VTEC mechanisms to deliver a broad torque/power band, it instead exploits the principle of intake tract resonance to deliver more or less the same result - that of merging two different though relatively narrow torque curves together to a combined curve that is delivers high torque across a much broader rpm band. This is achieved from the new intake manifold which features two sets of intake runners (from the plenum), effectively a variable length intake manifold.
The principle of variable length intake manifold depends upon the resonance of air inside the intake tract. Intake tract here includes the intake manifold and the air-filter system, i.e. from the air-filter right up to the intake valves. When the intake valves open and close, they create air pulses which flow along the intake tract. These air-pulses or sound waves are responsible for the intake roar (or noise, depending on who makes the engines). The frequency of the sound waves is determined by how fast the intake valves are opening and closing - how fast the engine is spinning or engine RPM. An engine spinning at 3.000rpm will create a sound wave at roughly 50Hz.
All sound waves will have resonance points which depend upon the frequency of the sound (or alternately, its wavelength). These are known as the resonance frequencies. When the wavelength for the resonance frequency coincides with the length of the intake tract, high pressure points will be created at the intake valves, higher than atmospheric pressure. This will help in the filling of the cylinders. More air means more fuel can be injected and this means more power. So all engines will feature a specific peak in torque (or power) which is influenced by this resonance frequency. For many Honda engines with a standard intake manifold (e.g. the B16A), this resonance frequency is usually around 3,000rpm. This is also why when we replace the standard air-filter with an open element system, we can destroy the mid-range torque of the engine if we do not make sure that we place our fancy new air-filter back in the same place as the original air-filter box of the stock intake system. This is because if we place the filter too close to the intake manifold, by using a very short metal pipe for e.g., we will effectively change the length of the intake tract and thus the resonance frequency it supports (a short intake tract will have a higher resonance frequency).
The principle of a variable length intake manifold, usually with dual runners like the one used on the R18A is that they make use of two sets of intake runners. One set is designed to have a resonance at a lower frequency (or engine rpm) while at a higher rpm, a 2nd set of much shorter intake runners will be used. This shorter intake runner will of course feature a resonance frequency which is higher. So the 2 sets of intake runners will deliver more or less two separate torque peak or effectively two slightly different torque/power curves. By using the same technique as with VTEC, by selecting the right point to activate the 2nd set of runners, we will be able to combine the two torque/power curves together to deliver a single curve which delivers torque/power across a much broader rpm.
One limitation is that dual runner intake manifolds do not have the same 'bandwidth' as that delivered via valve timing. Also the actual length of the intake runners are constrained by physical space so the two torque curves won't be spaced too far apart. So there are constraints to how far apart the two torque curves are as well as how 'wide' an rpm range they cover. Thus while in principle we can deliver the same benefits with variable length intake manifolds as with a traditional VTEC mechanism, in practise, we cannot work across the same very wide rpm range as VTEC. This is partially (not totally) why the R18A does not have a very high redline.
3. More compact dimensions
In pursuit of their "Man Max-Machine Min' principle, Honda has been introducing smaller and smaller engines. The new R18A is no exception and features a more compact size than the outgoing D17A, despite delivering an extra 100 c.c. of engine capacity. Honda R&D listed two areas for this achievement:
• narrow cam chain
• chain case with built-in oil pump
4. Quiet Operation
Engine 'noise' at both idle and when operating has been reduced with the R18A which Honda attributes to the use of a new Lower block construction for the engine block.
The new MAF sensors
5. Emissions
Acheiving lower emission levels (ULEV and ZLEV being the target) is the other target Honda has for their new range of engines and to deliver a new level of (low) emissions, Honda has employed the following with the R18A :
• 2-bed catalytic converter located immediately after the mainfold
• "Leading-edge" control systems : DBW and airflow sensors
Similar to the K20Z, the R18A employs MAF (mass air-flow) sensors in the air-filter box as well as the exhaust manifold to supplement the MAP sensor in the throttle body. In the Q&A session, I asked about the rationale in using both types of sensors. Honda R&D says they allow them to meter the air-fuel ratio in the engine a lot more accurately than just using either sensors alone and this is crucial to allowing them to achieve more efficient combustion of the a/f mixture, directly leading to more power, better fuel economy and lower emissions.
6. Reduced Weight
Besides being smaller in physical dimensions, the R18A is also lighter than the D17A which Honda attributes to
1. Aluminium VTEC rocker arms
2. integrated cylinder head and exhaust manifold (meaning they come casted as a single item)
3. Plastic head cover
4. High strength cracked connecting rods. The conrods are now casted as a single piece and then 'cracked' apart at the proper place. This gives a very close contact patch when they are bolted over the crankshaft)
5. plastic intake manifold, a 'trick' borrowed from the L-series engines
Some of the parts above, (such as the aluminium rocker arms) also reduce the weight of the internal working components and help in reducing internal power loss.
Drive-By-Wire
Both the K20Z and this R18A engine feature a new Drive By Wire (DBW) system which Honda says allows them to deliver "Exhilarating (throttle) Response" from the R18A engine. A very enlightening explanation was given when Honda R&D showed in the presentation a comparison of the acceleration versus throttle pedal position for the Civic 1.8S.
Note that the VW Bora is being used as the benchmark. While the 'target' remains the Toyota Altis, Honda is also targeting the 'continental' alternatives with this new Civic, hence the use of the VW Bora when tuning throttle response. Within Asia, it is generally held (whether correctly or not) that the continental marques deliver good 'driving feel' so cars from VW, Peugeot, Audi and so forth have been examined during the R&D of this new Civic.
NVH
NVH is another area which Honda R&D focussed on in the development of the R18A. Specifically they looked the 'High frequency range', i.e. how much 'noise' the R18A delivers in the higher frequencies.
The graph on the left shows their achievement in this area. Honda R&D itemized the following areas as being the main focus during development:
• Intake Sound
• A New "Torque Rod Mount" system
In addition, to reduce intrusion of outside noise into the cabin, Honda also employed sound insulation techniques.
A new 'torque rod mount' system was designed to supplement the standard engine mount system. This system consists of an upper and a lower torque rod added to the engine-gearbox package and helps to reduce vibration and twisting of the engine during application of throttle. The net result is the reduction of 'booming noise' from the engine in the high frequency range.
For sound absorption, this was done through a new "soundproof package" which helped in 'Improved Quietness' via the reduction of outside noise intrusion. These was done using double door seals and a special 'Sound absorbing door hole seal' which is a special hole opened up inside each door which serves to cancel out outside noise through resonance (see diagram).
There is also use of sound absorbing materials for improved sound insulation, specifically in the roof lining and the use of insulating floor carpets.
When Honda launched the new 8G Civic, they made a lot of reference to how much attention was paid to details - to regain back as much of the 'Civic DNA' of old as they can. One of the most important areas in this case was the sound of the engine, or rather how the engine sounds when pushed hard. Honda made lots of reference to how they actually tuned the engine sound when designing this new Civic.
In the area of engine sound, the target was to generate a 'Linear Engine Sound Output'. The D17A's sonic 'signature' was severely lacking (to be frank) in this area. So the new R18A was literally designed to 'make all the right noises at the right place' ! Honda characterized it as 'Sporty Intake Sound Tuning' (to improve the 'sonic quality' of the intake roar) and one of the places they paid a lot of attention to was in the specific tuning in the intake system (air filter system) by the use of 'optimized intake parts'. This comprises 4 main areas, identified in the diagram above on the left and which are :
1. A 'silencing device' for frequency change in the air-filter box
2. optimized Air cleaner SHAPE
3. Optimized duct length - note how the intake duct is twisted
4. A 'silencing device (for) frequency change' put in the middle of the intake duct, specifically for the tuning of the engine sound !
The sonic tuning involves the reduction of engine sound during low-rpm operation and an increase of the "High rpm intake sound", i.e. roar of the intake at high rpms was increased. The overall target was to produce a more linear engine sound during WOT runs. The achievements in this area are identified in the graph on the left.
So the idea is that the engine should be quiet when baby'ed but be suitably 'noisy' when pushed hard - clearly catering to the wishes of Honda enthusiasts ! After years of being told by us (enthusiasts), it looks like Honda R&D finally understood that the sound of an accelerating (Honda) engine is an extremely important and integral part of the Honda driving experience.
The careful attention paid to the engine sound during WOT runs for both the K20Z and R18A are explained by the term 'Linear Engine sound output' and is highlighted in the graph below.
Interior sound level at WOT for Civic 1.8S Engine sound achieved level for front seat middle sound
Like the K20Z, the R18A is now designed to work in conjunction with the new 5AT gearbox as a 'package'. The specific areas of improvement for the new 5AT have already been covered in the K20Z technical review so we will not be going through it again here.
Conclusions
During the launch of the new Civic, it was clear that Honda is quite proud of what they have managed to achieve with the new R18A engine for the new 8G Civic. What should now be clear from this article? Remember that 140ps max power output from a 1.8l engine can rightfully be considered 'very high spec', ignoring the standards set by Honda themselves with the original B18C engines. This can be supported if we compare the R18A output with those from competitors including 'high specification' twin-cam engines of similar size. For e.g. the 1.8l DOHC Twin-Spark engine used in the Alfa Romeos are delivering 140ps as are the 1.8l DOHC EFi engines used in the local (Malaysian made) hot-hatches like the Proton Satria GTi and Proton Putra. This is also comparable to the 1.8l Toyota Altis (138ps) and superior to the 1.8l Nissan Sentra (130ps).
Coupled with potentially exceptional fuel economy (for a 1.8l engine) and specific characteristics targeted to please long time Honda enthusiasts, it is clear how technically advanced the new R18A engine is.
I was truly impressed by how much technology was in the new R18A when I sat through the presentation. Ignore common misconceptions that 'SOHC means low tech while DOHC means high tech'. Owners of the new 8G Civic 1.8S should be proud and reassured that their new 1.8l SOHC i-VTEC engine is truly 'state of the art' !
I hope that explains everything about the FD1
2006 R18A
3-stage VTEC
Examine the SOHC VTEC and SOHC VTEC-E implementations. The clever Honda engineers saw that it is a logical step to merge the two implementations into one. This is in essence the 3-stage VTEC implementation. 3-stage VTEC is implemented on the R18A 1.8 SOHC engine in which the VTEC-E mechanism is combined with the power VTEC mechanism.
Many of us probably has laughed at the poor ignorant layman who said "I want power AND economy from my Honda". We know of course that power and economy are mutually exclusive implementations. Honda decided not to abide by this rule. Now, with 3-stage VTEC, we get BOTH power and economy !.
The diagram below illustrates the 3-stage VTEC implementation. The intake rocker arms have two VTEC pin actuation mechanisms. The VTEC-E actuation assembly is located above the camshaft while the VTEC (power) actuation assembly is the standard wild-cam lobe and rocker assembly.
Below 3500rpm and with gentle accelerator pressure, neither pin gets actuated. The engine operates in 12V mode with very good fuel combustion efficiency. When the right foot gets more urgent and/or above 3500rpm, the upper pin gets actuated. This is the VTEC-E mechanism at work and the engine effectively enters into the '2nd stage'. Now R18A 3-stage works in 16V mode (both intake valves works from the same mild cam-lobe).
Stage 2 operates from around 3500rpm to 5200rpm. When the rpm exceeds 5200rpm, the VTEC mechanism activates the wild cam-lobe pushing the engine into the '3rd stage', the power stage. Now the engine gives us the full benefit of its 140ps potential !
The 3-stage I-VTEC R18A engine is used on the current 8th generation Civic. The 3500rpm cutover from lean-burn to normal 16V operation in fact varies according to load and driver requirements. With gentle driving, lean-burn can operate up to 3500rpm or higher. The essence of 3-stage I-VTEC is power AND economy implemented on a 1.8l SOHC PGM-Fi engine. Many people mistake 3-stage I-VTEC as a "superior" evolution of the power oriented DOHC VTEC implementation, describing DOHC VTEC as "the older 2-stage VTEC" and implying an inferior relationship. This is totally wrong because DOHC VTEC is tuned purely for high specific output and sports/racing requirements. 3-stage I-VTEC is in truth an evolution of SOHC VTEC and VTEC-E, merging the two implementations into one.
Let me also add some personal thoughts. Over the last decade or so Automatic transmissions have improved out of sight & these days it is not uncommon to see an Auto returning better fuel economy than a manual (on the same model car)
As we are talking about an FD1 lets do a simple comparrison. At 100KPH in an Auto the engine is spinning over @ about 1800RPM whereas in the manual it is doing about 2700RPM. Therefore your injectors on the manual are pumping in more fuel at the same road speed, admittedly only a small amount, but it adds up over time. The only disadvantage with the auto in highway cruising is it only has to sniff an incline or slight hill & it will drop back a gear. This can be very annoying to some people, but they fail to realise that there is insufficient torque at that RPM to tackle any sort of incline.
In these days of ridiculous fuel prices I believe it pays substantial dividends to learn to drive economically & there is an art to it that is difficult to learn for some. It is not necessarily a matter of driving slower, but leaning how to do it. A classic case is when my wife drives our CU2 Auto she uses about 3L/100k more than I do, yet I am the faster driver. Go figure that 1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOhnnyFD
LMFAO, you had the links, so why did you ask me to explain?
I didn't have the links, just the articles that I had saved.
If anyone wants a copy of my spreadsheet for an FD1 Auto from new to 60K, just pm me your email add.
lol.. wot??.. i didnt ask anything buddah.. i think u must have misinterpreted me.. i was sayin in previous posts.. that i was explainin VTEC in regards to fuel consumption.. not really askin to explain VTEC.. i just summed it up b4
my bad if uve misinterpreted it
no probs mate, I probably misinterpreted as I dont frequent the FD forum much now as i have moved up to a Euro. I thought My FD1 was good on fuel - 6.78 average over 60,000km, but the Euro is more amazing 7.16 over 20,000km
i just got to 600.1 km and still got 1 bar left + the reserve fuel once all the bars go :) and i used air-con A LOTT
You're crazy. Lots of highway driving for you?
600km is good, but i found it to be the norm, 600 was when my low fuel light came on. anything under that was very rare. my best ever was 708km on 44.5 lts. However my best consumption was 577km on 34.4 lts.
my usual is abour 550 when the light comes on
hardly any highway, trips from my house to go out and eat etc max 30min trips on normal roads with lots of air-con.. was mid 30's outside other day zzz so hott
450kms full tank... combine cycle..... just running 1000km
On mine, its around 450 to 470km
fd1 fuel consumption is pretty high.....
6.9 is very hopeful - in fact, 6.9 would actually mean you get 724km out of 50L (tank)
or 652 km out of 45L
I actually did better than that with my FD1 Auto curtis, consistantly. From what you guys are trying to tell me your FD1's us more fuel than my current model Euro auto, you must have very heavy right feet is all i can say.
I reckon i'm just doing a lot of short drives, and a slightly heavy right foot. I think.
I average around 400-450ish.
All city driving and high revs :)
I always get around 600ish, never below 580
2006 vti-l manual.
driving 80ish k's per day.
Oh wow 80 k's is a lot.
I'm doing about 20-30....
We should make a poll on this